Dear Don, Interesting topic indeed. I have a few comments...
I am surprised to hear that you ..."have been surprised with the intensity of resistance... within the anthroposophical movement itself, the one place where I thought they would be well understood". I'm not surprised at all! And..., if you get resistance from your spiritual peers, then what will the scientific crowd think? How do you intend to deal with the "unavoidable conflict"? Personally, I find SALVATION within Natural Sciences; NOT THE DEVIL WITHIN. I'll get back to that, but first, ...pardon me for pointing out that Anthroposophists are not beyond the reach of Ahriman. As such, is not wise to confound the METHODOLOGY with its PRACTITIONERS; Anthroposophy with Anthroposophists. Your thesis pends on the reality that "language itself has been the key to Ahriman's trickery". Since you have experienced "intense resistance" in stating your case, it is possible that you have either fallen victim to the difficulties of communication, or that your thesis is incorrect. You must be open for both eventualities. I understand that the main argument of your thesis is that: - the devil in the language has corrupted the meaning of Darwins theory, and that we must be made aware of the serious consequence. One might also state that Darwin's theory is a tautology. In the spirit of the matter I'll define and explain the word and my thought. A tautology can be defined as 'a needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word: 'REDUNDANT', or, 'true by virtue of its logical form alone'. Thus, Darwin's "... the survival of the fittest..." becomes a tautology since 'fitness' is defined as: "...the capacity of an organism to survive and reproduce...". Hence, Darwin's theory might well be rephrased as : THE SURVIVAL OF THE ONE WHO SURVIVES. But, no need to worry because ALL theories are tautologies... see Peters: A Critic for Ecology. Isn't Darwin's theory simply the embodiment of one of the necessary conditions for spiritual enlightenment; a demonstration that all that exists proceeds in an evolutionary process that explains the structure and behavior of organisms, in their environment. As such semantics might be trivial, so long as the condition is integrated into contemporary consciousness; which it is. In this respect, Steiner mentions that NATURAL SCIENCE, the study of living phenomena, is a means of attaining and recognizing the "Etherique Cosmic Christ" on earth; a means of discovering the suprasensible life forces that lay behind sensible phenomena. Thus, wasn't Darwin was on the right track? You also mentioned the need of a 'new impulse' for the spiritual life of mankind. Does this new impulse replace that of the 'Christ'? Or is that cycle over yet? Are you referring to Steiner's book called Cosmic Memory? I've just finished reading it. If so, you might be interested to recall that he describes how our organs of speech will slowly become reproductive organs, while these latter will lose their function. If this is the case, then language as we know it will certainly undergo a major transformation. I've only begun to meditate on this spiritual and physical phenomenon, so I can offer no resolve. As for your "unavoidable conflict" and "battle" between anthroposophy and the conventional approach to science, I must disagree. Perhaps this was the way of the past, it has no place today. In the present it is AVOIDABLE and battles NEED NOT OCCUR! Quit the contrary, we must silent the debate on who's right and who's wrong and work together in revealing the divine. It is only when <Science becomes religious, and Religion scientific> that the true liberty of man will be preserved; his personality will be saved from the crushing deterministic laws of physics, and kept undiluted from spiritualities without any real foundations. Don, I commend you on you efforts of taking up these crucial questions and trying to give them the intense critical study that they call for. I also look forward in reading your final essay. Regards, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve Cruse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 25 septembre, 2002 15:54 Subject: Biodynamics and Darwin > > In Biodynamics #223, I expressed the view that Biodynamics would not come > into its own as a truly spiritual approach to agriculture, until the > Darwinian theory is overcome. The two are totally incompatible, and while > Darwin dominates Steiner cannot. > > With this in mind I thought that this lidt would be interested in the short > article that I have recently begun to circulate within the Anthroposophical > movement, it concerns some of the things that Rudolf Steiner had to say > about science and the spiritual forces of hindrance. > > > > NATURAL SCIENCE AND AHRIMAN > THOUGHTS ON INDICATIONS IN THE WORK OF RUDOLF STEINER > > In the lecture series Karmic Relationships Vol. IV, Rudolf Steiner clearly > indicates that he expected the Platonic and Aristotelian streams to work > together at the end of the 20th century in order to bring a new and > significant impulse to the spiritual life of mankind. This expectation > prompts us to ask: what kind of impulse had he in mind? Certainly it would > need to be something in keeping with his own striving, but it would need > also to go beyond that which is explicit in his legacy, otherwise it could > not be considered a 'new' impulse. Without saying as much, because our work > is intended for a general audience, Robert Zimmer and I have sought to > address this question in our recently published book Evolution and the New > Gnosis: Anti-establishment Essays on Knowledge, Science, Religion & Causal > Logic. > > In the above mentioned karma lectures, and in other lecture cycles, like the > one entitled 'The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness', Rudolf Steiner comments > repeatedly on the Ahrimanic character of modern science, and tells us that > many of the 20th century's scientific works, which at that time were yet to > be written, would be of Ahriman's authorship, achieved by his working into > the minds of materialistic thinkers. He also tells us that simple 'trickery' > has been and still is Ahriman's principal weapon in convincing humanity that > the physical world is the only reality (see my article 'Matter & > Mephistopheles' (in Biodynamics No.234). > > This being the case, we surely need to begin to understand what that > trickery is, and something of how it has worked over the past several > centuries to bring about the age of materialism. Such an insight could not > fail to be of great value to the future of human understanding, and yet its > character is nowhere explicitly stated in Steiner's work, only hinted at. > Did he know what Ahriman's trickery involved? I think he did, but that he > also knew that the time was not yet right to make that knowledge public. > However, it would have allowed him to predict with certainty that at the end > of the 20th century it would be the task of the Platonic and Aristotelian > streams to make it public, and that such an insight would indeed constitute > a new impulse. I suggest, therefore, that his prediction in this regard was > not guess work; that he knew whereof he spoke, and that it is now our task > as participants in these two streams to know it also, and to explore its > deeper ramifications. > > In the art of trickery the best tricks are often the most simple > their very simplicity causes them to be overlooked, even by highly > intelligent people. This possibility stands behind the thesis developed by > Robert and myself in our work. We argue that all along, language itself has > been the key to Ahriman's trickery, because it can be shown that intentional > and metaphorical modes of expression become profoundly and logically invalid > when they are used to promote or to defend a materialistic argument, but > that for centuries now, our best minds included, we have all failed to see > this irrationality. > > In constructing our argument Robert and I have focused on four main subject > areas: > > A. Use of the word 'mechanistic' as a dictionary-sanctioned synonym for > materialism as a whole, and how this relates to its true meaning, and to the > crucial question of 'failure' in man-made mechanisms when contrasted with > their natural equivalents (see Essay #4 in our book. Also my > semi-autobiographical paper 'Machines That Cannot Fail', and the shorter > presentation entitled 'My Thesis > SouthernCrossReview.org). I have since been made aware that the question of > failure was addressed in almost the exact same manner by Rudolf Steiner and > Ita Wegman, in Chapter II of Fundamentals of Therapy. It is limited there to > the book's subject, but clearly it has the potential to be universalized, as > Robert and I have sought to demonstrate. It certainly shows, however, that > Steiner was already cognizant of this problem > > B. The serious logical consequences that arise from the extremely 'loose' > use of language in promoting and defending Charles Darwin's theory of > origins. > > C. How this all bears on the problem of human knowledge as a whole. > > D. The far-reaching significance of Owen Barfield's phrase 'The Great > Tabu,' and how it has worked to shape the philosophy of science. > > I first began to think seriously about these four issues after my 63rd year, > and in the past five years, in a number of preliminary discussions with > members of the anthroposophical movement, I have met with the following > objections to what I was attempting to express: > > 1. That my emphasis on the issue of causal logic detracts attention from > the need for us, as spiritual scientists, to develop organs of higher > cognition. This is both untrue and short-sighted. My argument is > complementary to all such concerns, and if it is shown to be true it will > immeasurably heighten the need for science as a whole to take higher > knowledge seriously, and for the scientists of the future to seek to develop > such knowledge. > > 2. That if what we are saying is true, then it must appear to contradict > Steiner's seeming strong support for Darwinism, and especially his vigorous > defense of the work of Ernst Haeckel. This issue is addressed in my > supplementary paper 'Steiner, Haeckel and Ethical Individualism,' (see > Trans-intelligence.org) and briefly also in Appendix VI of our book. > > 3. That Steiner, and others, have claimed that materialism cannot be > logically disproved. Here I point to Steiner's other claim, namely: that > anthroposophy is the only modern critical world view that does not conceal a > contradiction at its base. This must mean that all other critical world > views, and materialism especially, DO conceal fundamental contradictions. > Most modern world views are dualistic, and the contradiction present in the > Cartesian dualism is fairly obvious, but not so that which underlies a > monism of matter. This whole question is discussed at some length in the > book, especially in Essay #12 entitled 'Causal Logic: Dualism and the Two > Monisms' > > 4. That this all leads to a potential conflict, at the level of simple > rationality, between anthroposophy and the conventional approach to science. > Yes, of course, I see this as being unavoidable, but I would remind my > critics that Steiner constantly uses the language of conflict when talking > about such matters. He speaks everywhere of spiritual battles between the > forces of hindrance and those that work for the good of humanity. This same > battle, I suggest, must now come down to earth in earnest. We deceive > ourselves if we think that in the interests perhaps of a false > respectability, or of the quiet life, that this is not the case. I make no > apology, therefore, for saying what needs to be said. > > I have been surprised with the intensity of resistance my views have met > within the anthroposophical movement itself, the one place where I thought > they would be well understood. However, this has only made me work that much > harder in stating my case. > > This issue is far too important, for anthroposophy and for the future of > science, for personal matters to stand in its way. I have requested that > the Science Section of the School of Spiritual Science, of which I have been > a member now for 33 years, should seriously take up the crucial questions > that Robert and I have raised, and try to give them the intense critical > study that they call for. > > Don Cruse >
